Kurieuo wrote:It is reasoning of man, like your reasoning is one of a woman. That said, Trinitarian doctrine is something other than Christ's divinity, so you shouldn't keep saying this is a discussion of Trinity, because such is much more

What we're discussing is Christology, specifically the nature of Christ. We have Scripture which clearly attributes divinity to Christ, Scripture you mentioned even, and others I've mentioned. That video in my last post too, the man makes a quite powerful case examining some passages you present as problematic in context. I think I was quite clear, and detailed, I'll let nonpartisan readers be the judge. Nonetheless, that video presents much of what I say in a different manner which I found clear and sensible.

As for your hand wave dismissal of such being reason of man, let's follow what exactly happened. Jesus was no longer here, and we had writings, and the teachings the Apostles passed on that were believed throughout Christian churches, both Eastern and Western churches. Disputes arose as to how one should logically reason and coherently make sense of such teachings. Councils were called and had, where very intelligent and passionate men, respected leaders in many different churches, hundreds, got together, discussed, and put together a logically coherent declaration based upon Scripture itself and what had been passed on. It would be foolishness to dismiss such thought without much consideration as just reason of man, substituting in your own had millennias later.

A simplistic historical review underpinned by an expectation that the intelligentsia were all in agreement and therefore rightfully invented the Trinity, couldn't be further from the truth....

"The world around the early Church was changing. The Roman empire began to crumble and Constantine came to power. He wished to unify the Empire, and chose Christianity to do so. But Christianity was far from unified.

Constantine invited the bishops from East and West to join him in the small seaside village of Nicea for a council to unify the church. McGiffert summarizes the council: three main groups were present at this council: Eusebius of Nicomedia presenting the Arian view of the Trinity, Alexander of Alexandria presenting the Athanasian version, and a very large ‘middle party’ led by Eusebius of Cesarea whose various theological opinions did not interfere with their desire for peace (259). Eusebius of Nicomedia submitted the Arian creed first and it was rejected. Then Eusebius of Cesarea submitted the Cesarean baptismal creed. Instead of submitting a creed of their own, the anti-Arians modified Eusebius’, thereby compelling him to sign it and completely shutting the Arians out. Those Arians who did not sign were deposed and exiled (261-263).

Thus Constantine had his unified Church which was not very unified. McGiffert asserts that Eusebius of Cesarea was not altogether satisfied with the creed because it was too close to Sabellianism (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three aspects of one God). Eusebius was uncomfortable enough with the Nicene creed that he felt it expedient to justify himself to his own people in a long letter in which he states that he ‘resisted even to the last minute’ until the words were examined and it was explained that the words ‘did not mean all they seemed to mean but were intended simply to assert the real deity of the Son...’ (264-265). McGiffert goes on to show that a ‘double interpretation [was authorized by the leaders] in order to win Eusebius and his followers.’ (266)."

Your reasoning does not hold up. These may have been intelligent men, but there was disagreement. Regardless, the ideology of a Trinity was invented by man. How do we know? Jesus never mentioned it...AND.......

There can be no doubt: Jesus was a stranger to all sides of the political proceedings in Nicea. He never claimed to be God, but was content to be God’s son. His creed was not of words that must be followed to the letter, but rather of spirit: ‘Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God’.{# Mt 4:8} He did not require wealthy and learned bishops to mingle philosophy and pagan polytheism with his simple truth, but blessed the ‘poor’ and the ‘meek’.{# Mt 4:1-12} No, it was not from Jesus that the dogma of the Trinity came.

Is this positive proof that the Trinity owes it origins to paganism and philosophy? The evidences of history leave little doubt. The concept of the Trinity finds its roots in Pagan theology and Greek philosophy: it is a stranger to the Jewish Jesus and the Hebrew people from which he sprang.

So then, I think I was quite clear and sensible, and believe others would have understood most of what I said. Further more, I can account for all Scripture rather than simply ignoring parts I don't like, and reading other passages in isolation devoid of any context to try generate some support for a view that has no agreed support by the early Christian church. it was clear to me you weren't and aren't going to agree, but for other readers your passages have now been responded to. Mine still remain, along with some of your own, which reveal Christ's divinity. Let the reader decide.

What is clear to me is that I haven't ignored anything. I haven't taken any scripture out of context, and I am perfectly sensible and I have responded to you appropriately.

Jesus prayed to His father as if his Father were a different person, said his father was greater than he/Jesus is as if the Father was a different person, and will hand over the kingdom to his father, as if his Father was a different person. In this things Jesus did not speak in parables, he spoke plainly. I do not believe Jesus is a liar. I don't think Jesus is misguided. I think and reasoning that makes Jesus into a liar is misguided.

Jesus said, ‘... I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me’,{# Joh 5:30} and in another place ‘my doctrine is not mine, but His that sent me’;{# Joh 7:16} and his words ‘my Father is greater than I’ {#Joh 14:28} leave no doubt as to their relationship.

Mazzy wrote:
! Corinthians 15:24 "23 But each in his own turn: Christ the firstfruits; then at His coming, those who belong to Him. 24 Then the end will come, when He hands over the kingdom to God the Father after He has destroyed all dominion, authority, and power. 25 For He must reign until He has put all His enemies under His feet.…"

So what do you reckon the above scripture means? Does it mean Jesus will hand the Kingdom over to another part of Himself after the end has come? or Does it mean Jesus will reign until the end as an individual and then hand the Kingdom over to His Father, God, an individual?

I don't see how it's a problem for such a powerful God to hand over something to another person of God. I don't see how it's a problem for God to make Himself as multiple persons who are still God.

I wish you could hear what you are actually saying. "I don't see how it's a problem for such a powerful God to hand over something to another person of God."

If God & Jesus were the one 'person' there would be no need for Jesus to hand over the Kingdom to the Father, as the Father would already have it.

Again, you're arguing against a straw man. The Father and Jesus are not one person. Along with the Holy Spirit, they are one God in three persons.

I beg of you to stop arguing against something you don't understand. Please open yourself up to learn what the doctrine of the Trinity actually says.

Don't talk down to me. There are plenty of intelligent people that do not accept the dogma of the Trinity.

You need to listen to yourself trying to look like one that has understanding. I believe God gave us a mind to use. For example, "person" refers to an individual. Three individuals in one person is nonsense. That is why Trinitarians call the Trinity a mystery. They can't explain how this can be, it just is.

Mazzy wrote:
! Corinthians 15:24 "23 But each in his own turn: Christ the firstfruits; then at His coming, those who belong to Him. 24 Then the end will come, when He hands over the kingdom to God the Father after He has destroyed all dominion, authority, and power. 25 For He must reign until He has put all His enemies under His feet.…"

So what do you reckon the above scripture means? Does it mean Jesus will hand the Kingdom over to another part of Himself after the end has come? or Does it mean Jesus will reign until the end as an individual and then hand the Kingdom over to His Father, God, an individual?

I don't see how it's a problem for such a powerful God to hand over something to another person of God. I don't see how it's a problem for God to make Himself as multiple persons who are still God.

I wish you could hear what you are actually saying. "I don't see how it's a problem for such a powerful God to hand over something to another person of God."

If God & Jesus were the one 'person' there would be no need for Jesus to hand over the Kingdom to the Father, as the Father would already have it.

Again, you're arguing against a straw man. The Father and Jesus are not one person. Along with the Holy Spirit, they are one God in three persons.

I beg of you to stop arguing against something you don't understand. Please open yourself up to learn what the doctrine of the Trinity actually says.

Don't talk down to me. There are plenty of intelligent people that do not accept the dogma of the Trinity.

You need to listen to yourself trying to look like one that has understanding. I believe God gave us a mind to use. For example, "person" refers to an individual. Three individuals in one person is nonsense. That is why Trinitarians call the Trinity a mystery. They can't explain how this can be, it just is.

Mazzy,

I'm not talking down to you. Stop trying to find a tone in what I'm saying, and start listening to what I'm actually saying. You have no idea what you're arguing against.

We are trying to help you understand. If you're simply here to argue against your straw man version of the Trinity, maybe you need to find a different place to do so. If you are open to learn what the doctrine actually says, then start listening.

1 Corinthians 1:99 God is faithful, through whom you were called into fellowship with His Son, Jesus Christ our Lord.

Audie wrote:
"Christianity is not a joke, but it has some very poor representatives."

Kurieuo wrote:There's this myth that a "many persons" like concept like Trinitarian doctrine came post-Christ, is pagan inspired which I saw Mazzy allude to many posts back. Yet, it's origins lie within Jewish thought and the Tanakh.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-aVQ8MELeg

My last response seems relevant to your last response to me Mazzy, given your unjustified invocation of pagan origins. And here's a more specific response:

https://youtu.be/xAcDV270D_0

"Whoever will call on the name of the Lord will be saved." (Romans 10:13)

thatkidakayoungguy wrote:
I don't see how it's a problem for such a powerful God to hand over something to another person of God. I don't see how it's a problem for God to make Himself as multiple persons who are still God.

I wish you could hear what you are actually saying. "I don't see how it's a problem for such a powerful God to hand over something to another person of God."

If God & Jesus were the one 'person' there would be no need for Jesus to hand over the Kingdom to the Father, as the Father would already have it.

Again, you're arguing against a straw man. The Father and Jesus are not one person. Along with the Holy Spirit, they are one God in three persons.

I beg of you to stop arguing against something you don't understand. Please open yourself up to learn what the doctrine of the Trinity actually says.

Don't talk down to me. There are plenty of intelligent people that do not accept the dogma of the Trinity.

You need to listen to yourself trying to look like one that has understanding. I believe God gave us a mind to use. For example, "person" refers to an individual. Three individuals in one person is nonsense. That is why Trinitarians call the Trinity a mystery. They can't explain how this can be, it just is.

Mazzy,

I'm not talking down to you. Stop trying to find a tone in what I'm saying, and start listening to what I'm actually saying. You have no idea what you're arguing against.

We are trying to help you understand. If you're simply here to argue against your straw man version of the Trinity, maybe you need to find a different place to do so. If you are open to learn what the doctrine actually says, then start listening.

This is a debating forum and I am responding to the OP for this thread appropriately. JW's do not accept the Trinity and they are not the only ones.

I know what Trinitarians have to say and I have listened. I do not agree. I have good grounds to disagree, while continuing to be a Christian loved by God. I have offered clear scripture that identifies Jesus as an individual separate from the individual, God the father. I have spoken to John 1 and the assumptions behind Greek translations. I have responded to arguments around Philippians 2:9 and the operative term being "Other names". I have also offered historical and validated evidence that the Trinity is doctrine invented by man, that was contested by many great minds of the Nicene Council but insisted on by Constantine.

May I add, that Constantine refused to be baptized until he knew he was going to die. Apparently Constantine did not patronize Christianity alone. After gaining victory in the Battle of the Milvian Bridge (312), a triumphal arch—the Arch of Constantine—was built (315) to celebrate his triumph. The arch is decorated with images of the goddess Victoria. In 321, he legislated that the venerable day of the sun should be a day of rest for all citizens. If you want to put your faith in this guy, Constantine's, reasoning, you are free to do so, along with many other Christians.

I am not here to change your mind or anyone else. It may in fact create a stumbling block for some, and I must consider this consequence through Christian eyes. However, please don't mistake yourself for someone that can change my mind with straw men and the reasoning of pretend Christians, like Constantine.

I think you feel threatened by what I am posting so much so that you have requested me to go elsewhere rather than debate on a debating thread. ... Good one Rick!

Kurieuo wrote:There's this myth that a "many persons" like concept like Trinitarian doctrine came post-Christ, is pagan inspired which I saw Mazzy allude to many posts back. Yet, it's origins lie within Jewish thought and the Tanakh.

My last response seems relevant to your last response to me Mazzy, given your unjustified invocation of pagan origins. And here's a more specific response:

Regardless of it's origins, the Trinity is doctrine invented by the reasoning of man and not in the bible. That has nothing to do with the Jews or what they thought. One of those highly educated and intelligent men you were talking about that were on the Nicene Council, Constantine maintained pagan practices and didn't want the responsibility of baptism until he knew he was near death.

Anyway RickD has turned me off this forum...

When and if we meet on the other side, we can have a good laugh about who was right, wrong, close etc

The statement that Jesus is God is a statement of His Nature.
If Jesus does NOT share the same nature as Hid father then He can NOT be His Son.
If Jesus is not of the same nature as The father ( Both being God, like a human father and son are both Human) then H eis NOT God and is NOT our saviour and the NT explicitly contradicts the OT.

We see the Messiah will be GOD - foretold, 700 years before the birth of Jesus:

Isaiah 9:6: For to us a child is born, to us a son is given; and the government shall be upon his shoulder, and his name shall be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, EverlastingFather, Prince of Peace.

What do we glean from that verse? A human child will one day be born who is "GOD" - He's "everlasting (is eternal!) - so, He had no beginning, wasn't a created being - He's "Mighty God!" OK, so what other human children ever born of Israel have been considered to be God? Any candidates - except deluded people and lunatics whose names history doesn't recall?

Seven centuries later, Jesus is born: Luke 2:11: Today in the town of David a Savior has been born to you; he is the Messiah, the Lord. Isaiah's prophecy came true on that day.

Jesus is the ONLY credible candidate that fulfills Isaiah's prophecy - and the only one who claimed Himself to be God. Why do you think they killed Him? And Isaiah most clearly states that a child will be born Who is God Himself!

Kurieuo wrote:There's this myth that a "many persons" like concept like Trinitarian doctrine came post-Christ, is pagan inspired which I saw Mazzy allude to many posts back. Yet, it's origins lie within Jewish thought and the Tanakh.

My last response seems relevant to your last response to me Mazzy, given your unjustified invocation of pagan origins. And here's a more specific response:

Regardless of it's origins, the Trinity is doctrine invented by the reasoning of man and not in the bible. That has nothing to do with the Jews or what they thought. One of those highly educated and intelligent men you were talking about that were on the Nicene Council, Constantine maintained pagan practices and didn't want the responsibility of baptism until he knew he was near death.

Anyway RickD has turned me off this forum...

When and if we meet on the other side, we can have a good laugh about who was right, wrong, close etc

............ .....

I know you've perhaps left for now, timeout if often best to be had when things get heated as I observe has happened.

Yet, if you read this, then I simply leave you with the question: What belief isn't the reason of man?
It seems to me, no matter what belief or position one holds to, that it'll always be reason of man. God made us rational creatures, able to develop beliefs. What is important isn't that our beliefs are had often via human reason, rather it is whether one man's reason is truer and more justified than another's.

In any case, we can leave our conversation here. Hopefully next time we interchange, you'll be on the side of truth in this matter.

"Whoever will call on the name of the Lord will be saved." (Romans 10:13)